PDA

View Full Version : What would McCain/Palin be doing right now...


tony hipchest
02-12-2009, 11:28 PM
... to address todays problems if they had been elected?

serious question- im kinda curious how a speending freeze would play out in this economic enviornment.

MACH1
02-12-2009, 11:42 PM
Not spending my money on kick backs and pet projects.:pig:

Putting more than an extra $13 a month in my pocket then what the savior is giving us.

SteelCityMom
02-13-2009, 12:03 AM
It would mean that the government would be spending money that it is saving from not funding unnecessary projects and programs. Instead, financing government operations would primarily come through the corporate income tax, excise taxes and tariffs. This in turn means no new taxes imposed on the "common" taxpayer, which in turn means more money actually being spent by consumers, which in turn means businesses can hire/keep more workers, which means people can have job security and take out loans and buy houses and cars and such, thus pumping more money into the economy, which boosts the stock market and makes everybody happy.

Whether McCain/Palin would actually DO those things, who knows, but it beats what the Democrats are planning to do to this economy, which is just borrow more money from the Federal banks to try to fix the problem, money that has interest attached to it, and will have to be payed back with taxpayers dollars.

In short: What Mach said lol.

MACH1
02-13-2009, 12:08 AM
Whether McCain/Palin would actually DO those things, who knows, but it beats what the Democrats are planning to do to this economy, which is just borrow more money from the Federal banks to try to fix the problem, money that has interest attached to it, and will have to be payed back with taxpayers dollars.

In short: What Mach said lol.

Obama's going to pull a Jimmy Carter and just print more money. Which drives down the value of the dollar, those who are old enough to remember how well that turned out for Carter.

tony hipchest
02-13-2009, 12:25 AM
Not spending my money on kick backs and pet projects.:pig:

Putting more than an extra $13 a month in my pocket then what the savior is giving us.
but why would you count on the govt giving you handouts? would you not be an extra $13 richer than you were under bush? :noidea:

are you saying mccain woulda been giving out even bigger handouts and pushing our children even further into debt?

xfl2001fan
02-13-2009, 07:32 AM
I'd like to think that they would completely and vociferously dissing the most recent "proposal". The only "stimulus" going on is for the banks and politicans with this proposal.

So far, the "change" BO promised has occurred by him "changing" his stance. Otherwise, I've seen little "change" at all.

PisnNapalm
02-13-2009, 07:40 AM
The government needs to just stop and step back. It will take time for things to get sorted out. Maybe years, but it will eventually happen.

Every time the government steps in to "do something" people hang back and wait to see what happens. People will save their money because they want to wait and see.

They feel that they will need to have some money to fall back on if times get hard for them.

Heck... I think that even if the government flat out lied and told everyone things are improving, half the people out there would believe it and things might start to recover sooner.

HometownGal
02-13-2009, 07:41 AM
but why would you count on the govt giving you handouts?

Geez, Tony - I can guarantee you that more than half of those who voted The Great One in based their votes on him giving them handouts. :doh::banging: They thought he was going to pay off their cars, boats, RV's, six figure homes that they couldn't afford and..... don't forget their bling.

I don't know if the McCain/Palin plan would have worked better, but I don't think it could have been any worse!

Change We Can Believe In. :jerkit:

TheWarDen86
02-13-2009, 07:46 AM
Not stopping the GITMO trials for the USS Cole bombing terrorists and not worrying about monitoring what type ammo I buy or how much of it I buy or increasing the cost of a box of ammo by about $2.50

SteelCityMom
02-13-2009, 07:51 AM
but why would you count on the govt giving you handouts? would you not be an extra $13 richer than you were under bush? :noidea:

are you saying mccain woulda been giving out even bigger handouts and pushing our children even further into debt?

It's not really about counting on the government to give you handouts, it's about not wanting them to take away as much of your hard earned money and putting it towards something that isn't needed or isn't going to work. It's about not wanting to set your own money on fire or throw it directly into the garbage ya know.

I'm sure McCain/Palin would have found something to spend taxpayers money on that wasn't necessary, but it would have been to a much lesser degree than what Obama is planning.

devilsdancefloor
02-13-2009, 07:58 AM
well if you beleive the media mccain would have died already and palin would be walking around not know what to do.

But i have no idea what they would do either does anyone else cause it didnt happen.

xfl2001fan
02-13-2009, 08:01 AM
It's not really about counting on the government to give you handouts, it's about not wanting them to take away as much of your hard earned money and putting it towards something that isn't needed or isn't going to work. It's about not wanting to set your own money on fire or throw it directly into the garbage ya know.

I'm sure McCain/Palin would have found something to spend taxpayers money on that wasn't necessary, but it would have been to a much lesser degree than what Obama is planning.

Having been out of the loop for a few weeks, is this really Obama's plan as opposed to Congress? The initial intent might have been Obama's, but I know he didn't add the other Billions in Pork to it.

SteelCityMom
02-13-2009, 08:13 AM
Having been out of the loop for a few weeks, is this really Obama's plan as opposed to Congress? The initial intent might have been Obama's, but I know he didn't add the other Billions in Pork to it.

I'm not 100% sure on that either, but no matter whether it was all his own or if Congress added to it, he is approving it and presenting it as a plan that he fully backs and supports.

xfl2001fan
02-13-2009, 08:19 AM
I'm not 100% sure on that either, but no matter whether it was all his own or if Congress added to it, he is approving it and presenting it as a plan that he fully backs and supports.

Touche!

revefsreleets
02-13-2009, 08:32 AM
I wonder how many of Bush's "failed policies" they would have adopted?

MACH1
02-13-2009, 08:42 AM
but why would you count on the govt giving you handouts? would you not be an extra $13 richer than you were under bush? :noidea:

are you saying mccain woulda been giving out even bigger handouts and pushing our children even further into debt?

No...Cut the capital gains taxes, business taxes so business can afford to keep more people employed. Keep Bush's "failed" tax cuts for the low - mid class intact, don't let them expire. Would be a good start. IMO

Doesn't matter who's in office now, what matters is how much more in debt they're gonna get us.:noidea: I'm all for doing something, but spending billions on non essential things like Frisbee parks is just idiotic.

MACH1
02-13-2009, 08:47 AM
Having been out of the loop for a few weeks, is this really Obama's plan as opposed to Congress? The initial intent might have been Obama's, but I know he didn't add the other Billions in Pork to it.

Yes he did. 2 Bil. for a power plant in his home state and somewhere around 70 mil. is going to find its way to Acorn. Thats just for starters.

stlrtruck
02-13-2009, 08:56 AM
I think it's really hard to say what they would be doing right now.

Let's face it, politicians - and Obama is no different, change their stance on issues faster and more often than they change their underwear.

Who can say that McCain wouldn't have flip flopped on issues too.

The bottom line is that no one in DC is following through with the tough decisions that America and Americans need right now. Their let's fix it now ideas are going to destroy the future of this country.

revefsreleets
02-13-2009, 09:05 AM
I think it's really hard to say what they would be doing right now.

Let's face it, politicians - and Obama is no different, change their stance on issues faster and more often than they change their underwear.

Who can say that McCain wouldn't have flip flopped on issues too.

The bottom line is that no one in DC is following through with the tough decisions that America and Americans need right now. Their let's fix it now ideas are going to destroy the future of this country.
McCain was much more moderate to begin with, so the distance he'd have had to travel across the polictical spectrum to arrive at the middle ould have been a lot less. Obama was VERY liberal in Chicago, and his policies are going to end up being something more like Clinton/Reagan than Carter/Jerry Brown/ Nancy Pelosi.

Which is a good thing! But that apple will end up having fallen far from where the tree originally stood.

kittenfantastico76
02-13-2009, 10:25 AM
Hopefully Palin would be taking the time to teach her other daughters about SAFE SEX AND PROTECTING THEMSELVES vs. ONLY PREACHING ABSTINENCE!

Bottom line, abstinence it's a great policy but not one most teens will follow, she better do something quick before her other girls grow up and get knocked up from not having EDUCATION about the matter at hand! Or worse, get diseases that could have been prevented with a little know how on the matter of condoms ETC.

Way to go MOM of the YEAR!.... NOT!

Otherwise I have no clue - it's hard to say... everyone promises one thing while running and don't always follow through once in office... I would hope McCain would be doing his best because other than his choice for a running mate, I liked him. It was Palin I couldn't stand, and still can't!

P.S. GO MICHELLE MOM OF THE YEAR!

kittenfantastico76
02-13-2009, 10:28 AM
well if you beleive the media mccain would have died already and palin would be walking around not know what to do.

But i have no idea what they would do either does anyone else cause it didnt happen.

UGH... you just described every nightmare I had during the election period!!! :doh:

Indo
02-13-2009, 01:22 PM
Having been out of the loop for a few weeks, is this really Obama's plan as opposed to Congress? The initial intent might have been Obama's, but I know he didn't add the other Billions in Pork to it.


Spending over $140million on the Inauguration Party wasn't exactly chump change

Indo
02-13-2009, 01:25 PM
In all seriousness...
can someone please explain to me how raising taxes will stimulate the economy?

If I have to pay more taxes don't I, by definition, have LESS to spend on cars and bikes and toys and "stuff" in general. How is the economy stimulated by me infusing less $$$ into it?

Indo
02-13-2009, 01:32 PM
Another Thought

Perhaps Mr. Rooney's Instinct for picking Head Coaches will carry over into his Instinct for Endorsing Presidential Candidates. Maybe Obama is just "getting to know the team" and he's gonna come up with a winning formula by his sophomore year...

we shall see

I'm skeptical, Dan

steelreserve
02-13-2009, 01:34 PM
Hey, who cares if we're wasting billions of dollars that won't actually fix the problem?

Now we have HOPE.

Preacher
02-13-2009, 02:43 PM
Based on his and Palin's records...

They WOULD have cut the pork away from this bill, and according to what McCain was saying in the elections, published the names of every senator that tried to push more pork into the bill.

That would have been a heck of start compared to what we have now.

MACH1
02-13-2009, 04:19 PM
Hopefully Palin would be taking the time to teach her other daughters about SAFE SEX AND PROTECTING THEMSELVES vs. ONLY PREACHING ABSTINENCE!

Well, for a few billion with obama we'll know if they have an std. :doh:

xfl2001fan
02-13-2009, 04:24 PM
Well, Obama promised change. What we didn't realize was that he meant that's all we'd see out of our paychecks as we're paying for everyone else's failure. A few dollars in change...and that's it.

TeeJay
02-13-2009, 05:44 PM
I'm pretty sure I just spent 20 quid for Sarah Palin to dance for me! Who needs politics when you can do that!

Hey..........hang on.......come to think of it, she dropped the h.........WTF.......I'm suspecting a ruse.........

Her names not Sarah........it's Sara! And she's not the Governor of Alaska, she's an exotic dancer working in London!!!

Pfft........try and pull the wool over my eyes would you!!

SteelCurtain7
02-13-2009, 06:41 PM
In all seriousness...
can someone please explain to me how raising taxes will stimulate the economy?

If I have to pay more taxes don't I, by definition, have LESS to spend on cars and bikes and toys and "stuff" in general. How is the economy stimulated by me infusing less $$$ into it?

It won't. It's all about income redistribution, folks. Book it. :banging:

devilsdancefloor
02-13-2009, 07:08 PM
Hopefully Palin would be taking the time to teach her other daughters about SAFE SEX AND PROTECTING THEMSELVES vs. ONLY PREACHING ABSTINENCE!

Bottom line, abstinence it's a great policy but not one most teens will follow, she better do something quick before her other girls grow up and get knocked up from not having EDUCATION about the matter at hand! Or worse, get diseases that could have been prevented with a little know how on the matter of condoms ETC.

Way to go MOM of the YEAR!.... NOT!

Otherwise I have no clue - it's hard to say... everyone promises one thing while running and don't always follow through once in office... I would hope McCain would be doing his best because other than his choice for a running mate, I liked him. It was Palin I couldn't stand, and still can't!

P.S. GO MICHELLE MOM OF THE YEAR!

mother of the year?? No way the women who was NEVER proud of her country!Maybe it is because i have seen blood sweat and tears for this country, but that is just so wrong. We are the greatest country in the world bar none!

UGH... you just described every nightmare I had during the election period!!! :doh:

For one have you noticed John McCain is still alive! i think everything would have been just fine since the advisors would have been all in place! (but he isnt gonna fall over dead) The only nightmare about the whole scenerio would be that Nancy Pelsoi would have been Vice President. The whole political system is FUBAR anyway honeltly there are only a few things that separate dems and republicans. This whole throw money at the problem sucks period! it didnt work in Europe & Japan and it isnt going to work here either!

KeiselPower99
02-13-2009, 07:28 PM
Aint it amazing how when Bush proposed the first stimulis package the Dems tried to kill it. Now after unsuccesfully bailing out the big banks and pissing on the working man they once again decide that a stimulis is a great idea. Here is a though noone has brought up If 3.5 million jobs are gonna be created and there is roughly 600,000 unemployed where are the 3 MILLION jobs going???? As an umemployed person i hope I get a chance to work instead of being passed over by cheaper labor.

KeiselPower99
02-13-2009, 07:30 PM
I wanna know what Nancy Pelosi and her husband do. They donated 10 million dollars to the UFL. A startup football league. In a economy thats in shambles they have they have the extra cash to do that and then tell us they are suffering as well??? Bull$hit!!!!!

devilsdancefloor
02-13-2009, 08:43 PM
Nancy and hubby OWN a vineyard in napa valley. Instead of hiring good old hard workin americans they go the cheap labor route!

http://fermentation.typepad.com/fermentation/2006/11/nancy_pelosi_ri.html

http://nukegingrich.com/2006/11/14/the-real-nancy-pelosi-%E2%80%94-multi-millionaire-non-union-resort-dining-and-winery-baroness/

She lies about her facelifts and her inability to blink. What do you think she means by saying she is a moderate? She scares me period!

tony hipchest
02-13-2009, 09:33 PM
Geez, Tony - I can guarantee you that more than half of those who voted The Great One in based their votes on him giving them handouts. :doh::banging: They thought he was going to pay off their cars, boats, RV's, six figure homes that they couldn't afford and..... don't forget their bling.

I don't know if the McCain/Palin plan would have worked better, but I don't think it could have been any worse!

Change We Can Believe In. :jerkit:

i had to borrow some of your posts in the other thread....



This thread is about former candidates McCain/Palin, not President Obama. Let's keep this one on topic, shall we? :wink02:



Let's get to the meat of the OP instead of running around in circles screaming "but Obama, but Obama, but Obama". :rolleyes:

fixed that for ya! :thumbsup:

:wink02:

HometownGal
02-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Hopefully Palin would be taking the time to teach her other daughters about SAFE SEX AND PROTECTING THEMSELVES vs. ONLY PREACHING ABSTINENCE!

Bottom line, abstinence it's a great policy but not one most teens will follow, she better do something quick before her other girls grow up and get knocked up from not having EDUCATION about the matter at hand! Or worse, get diseases that could have been prevented with a little know how on the matter of condoms ETC.

Way to go MOM of the YEAR!.... NOT!

Otherwise I have no clue - it's hard to say... everyone promises one thing while running and don't always follow through once in office... I would hope McCain would be doing his best because other than his choice for a running mate, I liked him. It was Palin I couldn't stand, and still can't!

P.S. GO MICHELLE MOM OF THE YEAR!

:coffee: :rolleyes: :coffee:

That is all.

HometownGal
02-13-2009, 10:11 PM
i had to borrow some of your posts in the other thread....





fixed that for ya! :thumbsup:

:wink02:

Hmmmmm - very interesting that 3 others posters brought up The Great One before I did and I'm the one who is called out. :scratchchin: :wink02:

P.S. I DID address the "meat" of your original post in my response. It obviously wasn't what you wanted to hear, hipcheese. :wink02:

tony hipchest
02-13-2009, 10:25 PM
P.S. I DID address the "meat" of your original post in my response. It obviously wasn't what you wanted to hear, hipcheese. :wink02:
i did think about editing this part out of your post...

I don't know if the McCain/Palin plan would have worked better, but I don't think it could have been any worse!


...but i thought it was relevant to the discusion. :smile:

MACH1
02-14-2009, 12:27 AM
Nancy and hubby OWN a vineyard in napa valley. Instead of hiring good old hard workin americans they go the cheap labor route!

http://fermentation.typepad.com/fermentation/2006/11/nancy_pelosi_ri.html

http://nukegingrich.com/2006/11/14/the-real-nancy-pelosi-%E2%80%94-multi-millionaire-non-union-resort-dining-and-winery-baroness/

She lies about her facelifts and her inability to blink. What do you think she means by saying she is a moderate? She scares me period!

I think Nancy and Al Davis are related. They're both out of touch with reality.

HometownGal
02-14-2009, 08:14 AM
i did think about editing this part out of your post...



...but i thought it was relevant to the discusion. :smile:

It WAS relevant to the discussion and I repeat - I wasn't the first person to bring up The Great One. :doh::banging: You asked a question in your OP and I answered it.

cubanstogie
02-14-2009, 10:06 AM
One thing McCain wouldn't be doing is on the job training like Obama is. He bit off more than he can chew, and the majority of people are to blame. Obama was a salesman and most people couldn't see through it. The nausea from being over medicated on Kool Aid is setting in and some people are wondering why they haven't been rescued yet. Michelle Obama is the most proud she has ever been at being american and I am the least. This is truly an embarrassment all these handouts and people who are unaccountable for their actions. A bill of 1000 pages passed without even being read is irresponsible, and the pork that goes with it is disgusting. And don't get me started on the liberal media. Giving attention and money to some skank who decides to have 14 kids. How do you libs like your tax money going to that. We need to get rid of illegals, quite giving out handouts, get people off their rears and bring back the USA. And all you idiots worry about is the prisoners at Gitmo. Get some priorities.

GBMelBlount
02-14-2009, 10:08 AM
... to address todays problems if they had been elected?

serious question- im kinda curious how a speending freeze would play out in this economic enviornment.

Great question, I don't know. It's not very relevant at this point imo.

Question for you Tony. What do you think of this Stimulus plan. Do you think it is the right thing to do?

devilsdancefloor
02-14-2009, 02:10 PM
http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09076/taxplan982.png

revefsreleets
02-16-2009, 08:32 AM
"Generational Theft"

< Sen John McCain >

Prophetic.

St33lersguy
02-16-2009, 07:12 PM
Probably not spending millions on family planning in other countries or stop the trial of that terrorist who blew up the U.S. ship.
This entire administration is full of BS. i think the people he selected were mistakes he's done NOTHING to help the country, he's only hurt our country. The only people he's helped so far is the terrorist. The sooner he's out of office the better off this country will be. NBC news (a.k.a. Obama headquarters) and the rest of the mainstream media need a serious head examination for practically getting this baffoon, this total moron, this clueless dumbass elected

MACH1
02-16-2009, 07:24 PM
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh134/Z-Lias/BamaClownGIF5.gif

tony hipchest
02-16-2009, 07:45 PM
Great question, I don't know. It's not very relevant at this point imo.

Question for you Tony. What do you think of this Stimulus plan. Do you think it is the right thing to do?if i knew whether or not it was the right thing to do i would be the presidednt (well maybe in a few years).

we're in the ultimate "damned if you do, damned if you dont" scenario. the bailout defies all principals of capitalizm, however its more than just our economy and monetary system at stake.

i hate to see the collapse if we sit by and do nothing. on the flipside, i hate to see a trillion dollars pissed into the wind with bankers, ceo's, politicians, and beaurocrats reaping the benefits.

take the auto industry for instance. i would love to see them reap what they sow. but where would we get our cars for the next 20 years? i dont think pumping billions of dollars into toyota, hyundai, or bmw is the answer.

anyone who comes onto a mb pretending they have all the answers is either fooling themself, ego trippin, or taking a shot in the dark. :noidea:

so i guess the "right" thing to do is err on the side of caution; try to be proactive instead of reactive (granted, its probably too late for that).

Dino 6 Rings
02-16-2009, 07:51 PM
Cut all taxes first and foremost. That encourages all Business to increase their own investment and spending. Stop trying to demonize "big corporations" that basically employ most of America.

Cutting taxes encourages growth. It encourages spending and encourages savings as well. It allows the average consumer to pay down on their personal debt and even invest into the markets while also spending in their local economy.

Spending increases the ability for Companies to sell products, then produce more products, then hire more people and create jobs for more people while spending is up.

Also, end the practice of unqualified mortgages right now. End it. Then liquidate all the bad mortgages you possibly can. Allow them to Foreclose and resell them at cut value to allow the market to correct itself and then, rebound. Yes, today, if you're selling, it would suck and you'd take a loss. But if you allow this to happen now, in 2 years, all of our property values will be up.

Also, Enforce the border, create jobs now on in the border states for enforcement and building the border fence we clearly, obviously need.

But heck, what do I know...

St33lersguy
02-16-2009, 08:21 PM
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh134/Z-Lias/BamaClownGIF5.gif


:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

tony hipchest
02-16-2009, 08:29 PM
Cut all taxes first and foremost. That encourages all Business to increase their own investment and spending. Stop trying to demonize "big corporations" that basically employ most of America.

...obama ran on a ticket of cutting taxes for the majority of americans.

i think its big corporations such as AIG that have demonized themselves. wall street has shown any money thrown their way will just find its way into executives pockets. what has happened to all the money these bankers were given to supposedly loan l to small businesses at a lower rate? all of a sudden now its too risky to loan that money and they are sitting on it?

the bailout is really only helping out those with the deepest pockets. giving them a tax break on top of that reallly helps noone.

GBMelBlount
02-17-2009, 09:07 PM
if i knew whether or not it was the right thing to do i would be the presidednt (well maybe in a few years).

we're in the ultimate "damned if you do, damned if you dont" scenario. the bailout defies all principals of capitalism, however its more than just our economy and monetary system at stake.

i hate to see the collapse if we sit by and do nothing. on the flipside, i hate to see a trillion dollars pissed into the wind with bankers, ceo's, politicians, and beaurocrats reaping the benefits.



I guess that's where we differ Tony. If the goal is to truly stimulate the economy, you normally do that by getting money to those who create new jobs.....small businesses...through direct tax cuts, etc. Government spending is not much direct stimulus, it is not as immediate, and it comes at a huge price. Only 2% is actually geared towards small businesses from what I've heard. It's bad all the way around imo. Plus you have shtuff in there like Harry Reids 8 billion dollar train from vegas to Cali.

We have never spent our way out of recession to my knowledge (other than war, arguably), BUT we have done it through tax cuts. Both JFK and Reagan did it I believe. So it does not make economic sense and runs contrary to what has worked in the past.

Stlrs4Life
02-17-2009, 09:42 PM
It would mean that the government would be spending money that it is saving from not funding unnecessary projects and programs. Instead, financing government operations would primarily come through the corporate income tax, excise taxes and tariffs. This in turn means no new taxes imposed on the "common" taxpayer, which in turn means more money actually being spent by consumers, which in turn means businesses can hire/keep more workers, which means people can have job security and take out loans and buy houses and cars and such, thus pumping more money into the economy, which boosts the stock market and makes everybody happy.

Whether McCain/Palin would actually DO those things, who knows, but it beats what the Democrats are planning to do to this economy, which is just borrow more money from the Federal banks to try to fix the problem, money that has interest attached to it, and will have to be payed back with taxpayers dollars.

In short: What Mach said lol.



That was already tried and didn't work, unemployment still soared. Bushs tax cuts didn't work.

MACH1
02-17-2009, 10:44 PM
That was already tried and didn't work, unemployment still soared. Bushs tax cuts didn't work.

And forcing the tax payers to flip the bill on 873 billion, on pork is gonna help? :rolleyes:

GBMelBlount
02-18-2009, 07:52 AM
That was already tried and didn't work, unemployment still soared. Bushs tax cuts didn't work.

Unemployment was lower under Bush than Clinton, wasn't it? If you take into account that Bush inherited a recession, plus we had 911, our economy bounced back quite well imo. The main problem is high taxes, government spending and deficits.

The other reason we are losing so many jobs imo (longer term) is because our products are overpriced in the world market, often due to extraordinarily high labor costs for relatively menial jobs AND strangling taxes which make our products more expensive and less competitive in a world economy.

Godfather
02-18-2009, 08:35 AM
Unemployment was lower under Bush than Clinton, wasn't it? If you take into account that Bush inherited a recession, plus we had 911, our economy bounced back quite well imo. The main problem is high taxes, government spending and deficits.

The other reason we are losing so many jobs imo (longer term) is because our products are overpriced in the world market, often due to extraordinarily high labor costs for relatively menial jobs AND strangling taxes which make our products more expensive and less competitive in a world economy.

22 million jobs were created on Clinton's watch. Bush presided over lower net job creation than Jimmy freakin' Carter. The stock market tripled under Clinton. Before the financial meltdown, Bush had presided over a 40% increase in six years. Clinton inherited a higher unemployment rate than Bush did and left unemployment lower than he found it. Bush was just the opposite--inherited a lower rate and left a higher one.

We do have high taxes, but we'll never be able to compete on the world market when we let non-free countries like Red China be aprt of a free trade system. Free labor will never be able to compete with slavery. As far as our high wages, those are necessitated by the exorbitant cost of living in the US.

revefsreleets
02-18-2009, 09:57 AM
Clinton thrived under a bubble economy.

That bubble burst. It was replaced by the housing bubble. Peter was robbed to pay Paul.

GBMelBlount
02-18-2009, 10:16 AM
22 million jobs were created on Clinton's watch. Bush presided over lower net job creation than Jimmy freakin' Carter. The stock market tripled under Clinton. Before the financial meltdown, Bush had presided over a 40% increase in six years. Clinton inherited a higher unemployment rate than Bush did and left unemployment lower than he found it. Bush was just the opposite--inherited a lower rate and left a higher one.

We do have high taxes, but we'll never be able to compete on the world market when we let non-free countries like Red China be aprt of a free trade system. Free labor will never be able to compete with slavery. As far as our high wages, those are necessitated by the exorbitant cost of living in the US.

Those jobs were created in the private sector. What specifically did clinton do other than stay the hell out of the way?

Sure the unemployment increased at the end of Bush's administration but wasn't the average lower than Clintons? and isn't it interesting that although 22 million jobs were created on Clintons watch that the average unemployment was still higher, at least i think so?

As far as China is concerned, Is your argument that we can't compete with China a good reason for astronomical taxes. NO. We are still less competitive in the world market because of ASTRONOMICAL menial labor costs, bullying unions, and strangling government taxes. PERIOD. No reason for us to throw in the towel and let our government have their way with us.

Stlrs4Life
02-18-2009, 07:06 PM
Unemployment was lower under Bush than Clinton, wasn't it? If you take into account that Bush inherited a recession, plus we had 911, our economy bounced back quite well imo. The main problem is high taxes, government spending and deficits.

The other reason we are losing so many jobs imo (longer term) is because our products are overpriced in the world market, often due to extraordinarily high labor costs for relatively menial jobs AND strangling taxes which make our products more expensive and less competitive in a world economy.



Where at? McDonalds? Or Wal-Mart? Funnie how you Bushies give no credit to Clinton, but are real quick to defend ole "W"orthless. What is the average wage in America, and what do you consider a menial job?

Stlrs4Life
02-18-2009, 07:09 PM
And forcing the tax payers to flip the bill on 873 billion, on pork is gonna help? :rolleyes:


Just like we are forcing our taxpayers to flip the bill on a many more billion on 2 wars.

Preacher
02-18-2009, 07:10 PM
Just like we are forcing our taxpayers to flip the bill on a many more billion on 2 wars.

Its called the constitution-- which states that the govt. has the responsibility to wage war when necessary.

I don't read anything in that document about pork. Do you?

MACH1
02-18-2009, 07:27 PM
Just like we are forcing our taxpayers to flip the bill on a many more billion on 2 wars.

Ya, I guess we could of stood by and did nothing. :doh:

I'd rather pay for something that is going to have an ending in our life times. In Iraq and Afghanistan.

GBMelBlount
02-18-2009, 07:47 PM
Where at? McDonalds? Or Wal-Mart? Funnie how you Bushies give no credit to Clinton, but are real quick to defend ole "W"orthless. What is the average wage in America, and what do you consider a menial job?

I never said everything Clinton did all bad. Sure, he's a repulsive, immoral, filthy disgusting POS, but he wasn't all bad. :chuckle:

And sure, Bush made plenty of mistakes.

So tell me S4L, what exactly did Clinton do to help create the 22 million jobs in the PRIVATE sector that you apparently want to give him credit for as opposed to the actual companies that may have had just a little bit to do with it. Just curious.......

By menial, I mean jobs that require minimal skill. A job that most people could be trained to perform in perhaps a day or week and could be quite easily replaced.

GBMelBlount
02-18-2009, 07:53 PM
Ya, I guess we could of stood by and did nothing. :doh:

I'd rather pay for something that is going to have an ending in our life times. In Iraq and Afghanistan.

Amen brother. Isn't it humorous that people complain about spending on war and don't complain about the other trillions of PERMANENT spending by the government......

stlrtruck
02-19-2009, 07:14 AM
I figured out what they would be doing right..

They would be riding in low flying planes hunting wolves. Then they'd probably hunt a few moose and bear to eat for the rest of the week while they entertained the thought of attacking Iran under the promise of sitting down to discuss political agendas.

revefsreleets
02-19-2009, 09:15 AM
Clinton was overrated as a President, and Bush was underrated. Clinton got WAY too much credit for things he had little or nothing to do with, and we all know Bush was blamed for just about every bad event that happened to anyone anywhere in the known universe for the last 8 years.

I don't blindly hate Clinton, so I'm able to step back and objectively see the many good things he did for this country. I feel sorry for people who have blind myopic hate for Bush...it severely clouds their judgment.

steelax04
02-19-2009, 03:49 PM
The government needs to just stop and step back. It will take time for things to get sorted out. Maybe years, but it will eventually happen.

Every time the government steps in to "do something" people hang back and wait to see what happens. People will save their money because they want to wait and see.

They feel that they will need to have some money to fall back on if times get hard for them.

Heck... I think that even if the government flat out lied and told everyone things are improving, half the people out there would believe it and things might start to recover sooner.

I'm with ya... the economy is built on confidence, not how much money DC is spending, how much they're printing, etc. The government could do everything in the world and if the American people didn't have the confidence in it, it wouldn't matter. The housing market expanded why? Because people had confidence in it, they didn't understand it, but they bought into it... then they found out it was a sham and all went to hell.


So sit back, support the alcohol industry with a 6-pack, and realize we're still citizens of the greatest nation on the planet. No matter what, the American people will persevere. (Talk about a presidential slogan...)

JPPT1974
02-19-2009, 07:29 PM
I would think, McCain would try to prevent another 9/11.
Since he would make a great war President, better than Obama!

Godfather
02-19-2009, 09:39 PM
Those jobs were created in the private sector. What specifically did clinton do other than stay the hell out of the way?


Balancing the budget?? If there's anything the last 25 years should have taught us, it's that balanced budgets are good and deficits are bad. Results don't lie.

Godfather
02-19-2009, 09:51 PM
I figured out what they would be doing right..

They would be riding in low flying planes hunting wolves. Then they'd probably hunt a few moose and bear to eat for the rest of the week while they entertained the thought of attacking Iran under the promise of sitting down to discuss political agendas.

Hunting from a plane is the most efficient way to cull the population. It's way more trouble than it's worth for recreational hunters, but it's exactly what you should be doing if your goal is herd management.

The wolves have to be kept in check because moose and caribou are a major part of the diet for residents of rural Alaska. You bag one and you can feed your family for the whole winter. It's a lot better than paying out the wazoo for beef from the lower 48, and you don't have to worry about hormones or antibiotics.

xfl2001fan
02-20-2009, 06:25 AM
So may people are so quick to blame or proclaim a President when they discuss the economy.

Why not look at the Congress that was in effect at the time? Why not look at other factors? For you Bush H8ers...do you really believe that 1 man really caused the housing bubble to burst? Do you really believe that Clinton (outside of his marriage...which, coincidentally is where he liked to stay anyways) was all that great?

These are rhetorical questions and yes...they could certainly be asked in reverse for the conservatives.

Go ahead and blame Bush...but forget that what happened during his time was backed by a Democratic Congress.

Does anybody remember who led the Congress when Clinton was in office? I was a bit young (in HS) during his first term, so I don't really recall...but I seem to remember a large number of conservative congressional members.

stlrtruck
02-20-2009, 08:00 AM
Hunting from a plane is the most efficient way to cull the population. It's way more trouble than it's worth for recreational hunters, but it's exactly what you should be doing if your goal is herd management.

The wolves have to be kept in check because moose and caribou are a major part of the diet for residents of rural Alaska. You bag one and you can feed your family for the whole winter. It's a lot better than paying out the wazoo for beef from the lower 48, and you don't have to worry about hormones or antibiotics.

I understand it's purpose and did from before the first time that the hollywood types wanted to protest what they were doing. While I love wolves and their family oriented packs, I'm not oblivious to the fact that they need to be controlled.

I was trying to be a bit humorous in my post because of the people who protested the means by which she provides for her state while Obama sits in the White House floppin' - again!

GBMelBlount
02-20-2009, 08:34 AM
Balancing the budget?? If there's anything the last 25 years should have taught us, it's that balanced budgets are good and deficits are bad. Results don't lie.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Are you implying Clinton was largely responsible for the balanced budgets in the 90's?

MACH1
02-20-2009, 10:00 AM
Hunting from a plane is the most efficient way to cull the population. It's way more trouble than it's worth for recreational hunters, but it's exactly what you should be doing if your goal is herd management.

The wolves have to be kept in check because moose and caribou are a major part of the diet for residents of rural Alaska. You bag one and you can feed your family for the whole winter. It's a lot better than paying out the wazoo for beef from the lower 48, and you don't have to worry about hormones or antibiotics.

I wish we could do that here. Thin out the wolf population. They have been allowed to populate unchecked because their "endangered". They have successfully wiped out the mule deer and elk herds and the tree huggers wonder why they're eating peoples livestock and pets.

Godfather
02-20-2009, 12:51 PM
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Are you implying Clinton was largely responsible for the balanced budgets in the 90's?

He deserves a share of the credit, just like the GOP Congress. You can pretend that the President only gets credit for the good things when there's an R after his name and only gets blamed for the bad things when there's D after his name, but you'll have to tie yourself into ridiculous logical pretzels to do so.

You're getting very close to arguing that deficits are a good thing. Sounds like you're a closet liberal.

Godfather
02-20-2009, 12:53 PM
I understand it's purpose and did from before the first time that the hollywood types wanted to protest what they were doing. While I love wolves and their family oriented packs, I'm not oblivious to the fact that they need to be controlled.

I was trying to be a bit humorous in my post because of the people who protested the means by which she provides for her state while Obama sits in the White House floppin' - again!

Yeah, just clarifying that for people who weren't sure. If I remember right you're a fellow Palin fan :drink:

stlrtruck
02-20-2009, 01:47 PM
Yeah, just clarifying that for people who weren't sure. If I remember right you're a fellow Palin fan :drink:

yeppers :drink:

GBMelBlount
02-20-2009, 02:57 PM
He (Clinton) deserves a share of the credit, just like the GOP Congress. You can pretend that the President only gets credit for the good things when there's an R after his name and only gets blamed for the bad things when there's D after his name, but you'll have to tie yourself into ridiculous logical pretzels to do so.

You're getting very close to arguing that deficits are a good thing. Sounds like you're a closet liberal.

Huh? What? Show me where I ever implied deficits were or weren't a good thing. YOU are implying that my question has no merit because I'm a partisan conservative.

So why don't we try and stick with facts, OK? So again, what specifically do you feel Clinton did to deserve a "share of the credit" for the balanced budgets? Not saying he doesn't deserve ANY, but again, just curious.......

Godfather
02-20-2009, 05:24 PM
Huh? What? Show me where I ever implied deficits were or weren't a good thing. YOU are implying that my question has no merit because I'm a partisan conservative.

So why don't we try and stick with facts, OK? So again, what specifically do you feel Clinton did to deserve a "share of the credit" for the balanced budgets? Not saying he doesn't deserve ANY, but again, just curious.......

Pushed the tax increases through Congress in 1993 (which is definitely not ideal but it increased government revenue) and signed off on welfare reform and spending controls (not really cuts but slowing down the spending increases). The latter happened after a couple of vetoes but Congress passed a version he found acceptable.

steelwall
02-20-2009, 09:16 PM
Unemployment was lower under Bush than Clinton, wasn't it? If you take into account that Bush inherited a recession, plus we had 911, our economy bounced back quite well imo. The main problem is high taxes, government spending and deficits.

The other reason we are losing so many jobs imo (longer term) is because our products are overpriced in the world market, often due to extraordinarily high labor costs for relatively menial jobs AND strangling taxes which make our products more expensive and less competitive in a world economy.


Exactly, how about we take all this money we are about to spend on "the bail out" and fix healthcare and social security. We have to fix these in order for us to start making our products more compeditive by lowering production costs..... and it's just a sound thing to do anyway:noidea:

TeeJay
02-22-2009, 02:38 AM
... to address todays problems if they had been elected?



Hopefully not making the two backed beast, but now I have that image in my head and it won't go away....Eeeewwwhhhh......*Shudders*

Sorry, no serious answer here, but in my defence I have enough problems with Gordon Brown running my Country (and it will be mine....oh yes, it will be mine...) to be constuctive.

When I say running, I obviously mean f-ing up..............
Gotta love Politicians!! :toofunny:

MasterOfPuppets
02-22-2009, 03:29 AM
Hopefully not making the two backed beast, but now I have that image in my head and it won't go away....Eeeewwwhhhh......*Shudders*

Sorry, no serious answer here, but in my defence I have enough problems with Gordon Brown running my Country (and it will be mine....oh yes, it will be mine...) to be constuctive.

When I say running, I obviously mean f-ing up..............
Gotta love Politicians!! :toofunny:
is he as disliked as tony blair? i kinda liked blair.....:noidea:

TeeJay
02-22-2009, 04:21 AM
is he as disliked as tony blair? i kinda liked blair.....:noidea:


Blair was a God compared to the Brown.......Brown's just someone who walked in to the job after Tony resigned, giving the big "we'll have an Election next year" speech, until he found out how unpopular he was.....and that was put aside.

For me personally, I'd rather the Browns won the AFC than see this Brown in for another term. I never realised I had another level of contempt until he started ruining...sorry running the Country.

And yeah, I never was a Blair man, but one of the few things he did I ever agreed with (the war on Terrorism) turned out to be the thing his voters turned on him for. At least Tony had some charisma. Brown's just a non entity that's surrounded himself with complete 'tards - I mean, have you seen Milliband, our Foreign Sec? What a waste of space. About as useful as a pancake lifeboat. (When needed it'll go limp, soggy and disappear without a trace!) The whole government is a sham! - And that'll me on the MI5 watched list now!

But lets not get me started on politics! :wink02:

MasterOfPuppets
02-22-2009, 04:40 AM
Blair was a God compared to the Brown.......Brown's just someone who walked in to the job after Tony resigned, giving the big "we'll have an Election next year" speech, until he found out how unpopular he was.....and that was put aside.

For me personally, I'd rather the Browns won the AFC than see this Brown in for another term. I never realised I had another level of contempt until he started ruining...sorry running the Country.

And yeah, I never was a Blair man, but one of the few things he did I ever agreed with (the war on Terrorism) turned out to be the thing his voters turned on him for. At least Tony had some charisma. Brown's just a non entity that's surrounded himself with complete 'tards - I mean, have you seen Milliband, our Foreign Sec? What a waste of space. About as useful as a pancake lifeboat. (When needed it'll go limp, soggy and disappear without a trace!) The whole government is a sham! - And that'll me on the MI5 watched list now! so why is he allowed to decide when an election takes place ??? there's got to be some type of protocal.....:noidea:

But lets not get me started on politics! :wink02:so why is he allowed to decide when an election takes place ??? there's got to be some type of protocal.....:noidea:

TeeJay
02-22-2009, 04:51 AM
so why is he allowed to decide when an election takes place ??? there's got to be some type of protocal.....:noidea:


Cause unfortunately he came into power two years into Tony's last 4 year Term, so officially he didn't have to have one, the party still had two years to run. Unfortunately they were so full of themselves and believed in their own spin they thought an election was a formality.....until someone checked the polls.

Then we were stuck with him for the whole entitlement of the term. That runs out this year though.......yeah......Election year Baby...least I hope it is!! Oh god....hope I haven't got it wrong, and I've got another year of this...............damn.............

GBMelBlount
02-22-2009, 08:14 AM
Pushed the tax increases through Congress in 1993 (which is definitely not ideal but it increased government revenue) and signed off on welfare reform and spending controls (not really cuts but slowing down the spending increases). The latter happened after a couple of vetoes but Congress passed a version he found acceptable.

Good points.

It could also be argued that the tidal wave of worldwide economic prosperity due to computers, the internet and increased productivity in the 90's was greater than the dampening effects tax increases usually have on economies. GNP (and profits) increased significantly.

Also, a good deal of the surpluses were due to a marked increase in intergovernemental holdings (still debt) and social security surpluses. If I'm not mistaken our total debt actually increased during the years we claimed surpluses.......

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

So, ya, the tax increases may have helped, but largely because we were fortunate enough to have such an incredible tidal wave of world economic expansion.

St33lersguy
02-22-2009, 09:12 AM
Clinton was overrated as a President, and Bush was underrated. Clinton got WAY too much credit for things he had little or nothing to do with, and we all know Bush was blamed for just about every bad event that happened to anyone anywhere in the known universe for the last 8 years.

I don't blindly hate Clinton, so I'm able to step back and objectively see the many good things he did for this country. I feel sorry for people who have blind myopic hate for Bush...it severely clouds their judgment.

Amen. Not to mention the media campaign to make Bush look as awful as humanly possible. The same media that will still call Osama er Obama the 2nd coming of christ & downplay the many mistakes if he lays down while terrorist organizations all over the world destroy the country completely.